DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10 -13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US 5, 591, 037).
Regarding claim 10, Jin discloses a solder paste comprising solder particles (column 5, lines 1-6) a flux (column 3, lines 20-25; column 5, lines 1-5), and a volatile dispersion medium (column 4, lines 56-60), a content of the dispersion medium is 30% by mass or more (column 5, lines 10-15).
Jin does not disclose wherein the solder particles have an average particle size of 1mm to 10 mm.
Jin however discloses the solder particles have a size 0.5-50 mm (column 5, lines 1-5).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the solder particles with an average particle size to be in the claimed range for the purpose of optimization a solder pastes properties (Jin, column 5, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 11, Jin discloses wherein solder constituting the solder particles has a melting point of 180°C or lower (column 4, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 12, Jin discloses wherein a content of the solder particles is 50% by mass or less (column 5, lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 13, Jin does not disclose wherein a content of the flux is 10 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the solder particles.
Hayashi however discloses that a content of the flux can be adjusted to optimize the solder paste properties (column 5, lines 1-7).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a content of the content of the flux to be in the claimed range for the purpose of optimization solder paste properties.
Regarding claim 16, Jin discloses forming solder bumps on electrodes of a member having a plurality of electrodes on a surface thereof by a solder precoating method with the solder paste according to claim 10.
Claim(s) 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brese (US 2005/0133572) in view of Jin.
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Brese discloses a method comprising: forming solder bumps (Fig.1, numeral 12) on electrodes (4) of a member having a plurality of electrodes (4) on a surface (2) by a solder precoating method with the solder paste comprising solder particles ([0039]; [0013]), a flux ([0013]; [0028]),
Brese does not disclose wherein the solder particles have an average particle size of 1-10 mm; (2) a volatile dispersion medium, and a content of the dispersion medium is 30% by mass or more.
Regarding element (1), Jin however discloses the solder particles have a size 0.5-50 mm (column 5, lines 1-5).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the solder particles with an average particle size to be in the claimed range for the purpose of optimization a solder pastes properties (Jin, column 5, lines 1-12).
Regarding element (2), Jin discloses a volatile dispersion medium (column 4, lines 56-60), a content of the dispersion medium is 30% by mass or more (column 5, lines 10-15).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to have a volatile dispersion medium, and a content of the dispersion medium is 30% by mass or more for the purpose of minimizing undesirable electrical shoring (Jin, column 5, lines 8-13).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ikemoto (US 2014/0030848).
Regarding claim 17, Jin does not disclose wherein the flux is at least one selected from the group consisting of lactic acid, citric acid, stearic acid, glutamic acid, glutaric acid, succinic acid, adipic acid, pimelic acid, suberic acid, benzoic acid, and malic acid.
Ikemoto however disclose wherein the flux is at least one selected from the group consisting of lactic acid, citric acid, stearic acid, glutamic acid, glutaric acid, succinic acid, adipic acid, pimelic acid, suberic acid, benzoic acid, and malic acid ([0125]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Jin with Ikemoto to have the flux selected from the group consisting of lactic acid, citric acid, stearic acid, glutamic acid, glutaric acid, succinic acid, adipic acid, pimelic acid, suberic acid, benzoic acid, and malic acid for the purpose of improving solder bonding (Ikemoto, [0229]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, and 18-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The search of the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest heating the member and the solder paste at a first temperature below a melting point of solder constituting the solder particles to volatilize the dispersion medium in the solder paste, and forming a solder particle-containing layer on the member; a step of heating the member and the solder particle-containing layer at a second temperature equal to or higher than the melting point of the solder constituting the solder particles to melt the solder particles in the solder particle-containing layer as required by independent claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10-13 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights